On March 26, Tennessee SB 471 passed the Senate State and Local Government Committee with only one “no” vote. It provides that political parties would no longer nominate candidates for U.S. Senate by primary. Instead, if a party had members in the state legislature, the party’s legislators would choose that party’s nominee for U.S. Senate. Parties without legislators could use any method, although existing law already provides that newly-qualifying parties nominate by convention.
The bill is sponsored by Senator Frank Niceley (R-Strawberry Plains). An identical bill in the House, HB 415, by Representative Harry Brooks (R-Knoxville), has a hearing in early April.
As far as is known, ever since the 17th Amendment took effect in 1913, there has been no state with such a provision in place. The two most common methods of nomination, of course, are primary and convention, but legislative caucus is a third method. U.S. political parties used caucus nominations for President before the 1830’s.
ANTI-Democracy gerrymander oligarchs at work — on the MARCH to subvert Democracy.
How about have the gang leader of the oligarchs make the nominations ???
Think STALIN, HITLER, etc. type nominees.
—-
P.R. and nonpartisan App.V.
Watching the Republican party try to run away from their own Tea Party tail is great sport, isn’t it?
This method is terrible because it excludes so many from the selection process and is virtually an appointment process unless one of the major parties decides to run against this bad idea and sponsor an ad hoc popular mechanism to pick up a contrasting legitemacy that would help in the general. And that is the only good thing about this idea: It would test the Dems to act completely apart from the new major party standard in TN, forfieting establishment control.
The Dems most likley would act to behave as one of the co-major parties using the law as cover and sell their selected establishment candidate as ratified as popular at some mass meeting for that purpose.
This new law lets voters see major parties tested to see if either is a party of voters, mainly.
Each party should be allowed to nominate by its own rules. The legislature should not put restrictions on any party. If a party wants to nominate by legislative caucus, let them. We’ll see what the voters think of their candidate.
In 2012, Mark Clayton won the Democratic Primary for US Senate in Tennessee. The state Democratic Party refused to endorse Clayton because he was associated with groups the Democratic Party considered unsavory. Yet, the Democratic Party of Tennessee could find no legal means to remove Clayton from the ballot and replace him with a more acceptable candidate. This law is intended to eliminate the possibility of a party being saddled with an unwanted candidate in the future. That being said, taking the decision away from rank and file party members is a bad idea.
This was presented as a way to get around the 17th Amendement, without having to amend the Constitution (similar in concept to the NPV Scheme).
The sponsor said the idea was suggested by the Goldwater Institute, but I couldn’t find anything about it on their website. The Goldwater Institute did have a proposal that would add a constitutional amendment that would require legislative approval by 26 states for expansion of the federal debt, which they suggested would restore the power relationship between the federal government and states to somewhat similar that prior to the 17th Amendment.
6 –
You say
“This was presented as a way to get around the 17th Amendement, without having to amend the Constitution (similar in concept to the NPV Scheme).”
Please explain your parenthetical comment. While it is true that it is not necessary to amend the constitution in order for NPV to be implemented, it is NOT true that NPV is designed to “get around” any aspect of the US Constitution. So where is the “similarity” in “concept” here, Jimbo?
Again, this bill is intended to prevent an unsavory candidate from being nominated. It does not attempt to get around the 17th Amendment in any way. General elections are not affected by this bill.
Primaries came along in the late 1800s as a major reform to have the average voter have SOME control about who got nominated.
See all the threats and purges in the EVIL bad old days of robot party hack gangs — think Tweed gang.
Thus == this machination is going back to the DARK AGE of having the oligarchs in control
#8 Did you watch the committee hearing?
Before the 17th Amendment, senators were responsive to their states, and in particular to the legislature.
Now Senators are completely independent. Senator Barack Obama had not talked to the governor of his State for two years, and seemed proud of that fact.
The idea is that senators nominated by legislators would remain responsive to the legislature, even if they were nominated by partisan caucuses of the legislature and then voted on by the public.
Your theory would have the Republican Niceley being nice to the Democratic Party so they could avoid the mistake of nominating someone like Mark Clayton who received 30% of the vote in 2012 AND coming up with the explanation based on the 17th Amendment.
#9 The legislative caucuses would be open, and the public be able to put forward candidates.
#7 Barry Scary,
The US Constitution gives the State legislatures the authority to prescribe the manner of election of representatives and senators. This is similar to the authority that State legislatures have with respect to directing the manner of appointment of presidential electors.
There is a difference, in that representatives and senators must be popularly elected (senators since passage of 17th Amendment), and Congress can override the state laws.
While there must be a popular election for senator in November, the method of nominating the candidates is up to the legislature to determine. The proposal in Tennessee is intended to make senators more responsive to the legislature, similar to that prior to passage of the 17th Amendment. They could get the same (or better) result by repealing the 17th Amendment.
The NPV Scheme is based on legislatures directing that the appointment of presidential electors be based on the so-called “national popular vote”. They could get the same (or better) result by amending the Constitution.
I have never claimed that the NPV Scheme was unconstitutional, but rather that it is a clever machination that is seriously flawed with ill-begotten policy ramifications. Those who support the NPV Scheme often confuse “legal” with “good policy”.
12 –
Jimbo,
While your opposition to NPV may be principled, you often make statements like the one above which are designed to confuse and to add support to the unfounded arguments which are mad in opposition to NPV. That fact isn’t even worth arguing. In this instance you VERY CLEARLY suggested that NPV is an attempt to “get around” some aspect of the US Constitution. Although you say the NPV scheme is not unconstitutional in 12 above, you implied that it is in 6. If it’s constitutional, then what is there about the constitution that needs to be gotten “around?”
Maybe you’re just a sloppy writer, but I think not. I think this is just another example of the kind of obfuscation you and your Republican cohorts have employed in opposition to NPV, but you especially as their agent in this space.
So if even some of us supporters of NPV are “confused” on the issues of legality and policy with respect to NPV…give yourself a pat on the back!
#13 Barry Scary,
“get around” does not necessarily mean an unconstitutional or illegal action. But face it, the proper way to implement a national popular vote would be to amend the constitution.
You’re not going to claim that you don’t want want a constitutional amendment because that would preclude the States from experimenting with other methods of appointment such as a lottery. Are you? You favor the NPV Scheme because it is clever, and amending the Constitution is hard.
But let’s think about this.
North Dakota appoints its presidential electors on the basis of the statewide popular vote. Would it be constitutional for North Dakota to have different candidates on the ballot in Fargo than are on the ballot in Bismarck or in Minot? You’d agree that would violate the 14th Amendment (abridgement of the right to vote for presidential electors).
North Dakota does not have to appoint presidential electors on the basis of the popular vote, but once it makes the decision to use the popular vote it must comply with other constitutional provisions regarding elections. You do agree?
Now what if South Dakota and North Dakota were to enter into a compact to appoint all 6 presidential electors on the basis of the Dakota-wide popular vote.
Would it be OK for North Dakota to continue to use its unconstitutional election scheme simply because it entered into an interstate compact? I wouldn’t think so. How about you?
But what if North Dakota did use the same ballot for every voter, but what if there were different candidates on the ballot in Pierre than there were in Bismarck? Or if the ballot were different in different parts of the Standing Rock Indian Reservation, which straddles the border.
If Norris in North Dakota can make a mark on a ballot, but that mark is less effective because it will be aggregated with marks made in South Dakota where his twin-brother Seth lives (In 2012 voters in South Dakota were not able to vote for Jill Steine) isn’t the right to vote in an election for presidential electors abridged for both Norris and Seth and every Dakotan voter.
14 –
Tell you what…let me use the words I put in my own mouth rather than the ones you’re trying to put in instead.
I favor the NPV scheme not because it is “clever,” but rather because it wold have the effect of electing our president by popular vote count, rather than employing our existing, faulty, antiquated, stupid system that needlessly interjects intermediaries into the process.
Also, there is no aspect of the constitution that needs be “gotten around” in order for NPV to be implemented.
Do you have a degree in advanced convolution, by the way?